Burlington Bailiffs' - told by Judge to stop enforcement - ignore the judge - Form 4, trespass or what?

[welsh1]

Whilst the answer given by Burlington Group is welcome with regard to its content there is no mention of why as told by the OP that they carried on with removal after speaking to the Judge?

 

They mention in the last paragraph that if they are told to stop then they will, but anything already loaded will be taken to their store,anything not loaded is left where it is.

[wonkeydonkey]

Dear Rasg,

Having read comments above, we would like to comment and clarify a few of the issues raised.

 

Firstly, as I am sure you can appreciate, a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) acts on an order of the High Court. It is up to the Court alone to decide whether or not monies are rightfully owed. It is the obligation of the HCEO to remain neutral to that position and execute the order of the Court.

 

As I am sure you can imagine, HCEOs encounter difficult and challenging situations every day where claimants are owed money from defendants who have no intention of honouring their commitments, and intend to defy the order of a court. This is certainly not the case every time and may indeed not apply on this occasion. However, due to this situation, it is the obligation of the HCEO to protect the creditor’s position and act in accordance with the order of the Court.

 

You would be surprised how often defendants intentionally hide valuable goods if they are left in their trust. So, when our HCEOs are on site, they will often remove goods. Those goods can be stored until they are sold or until payment is made, unless a Court directs the offer to return the goods in the meantime.

 

With regards to your comment about a “mob handed” attendance, it would appear that there has been some confusion. There were only two HCEOs in attendance on the occasion you have described, together with two removal porters who were present to assist with the loading of goods onto a suitable removal vehicle. The two HCEOs would have struggled to carry out an efficient removal without the assistance of professional removers.

 

Finally, in response to your comment regarding our officer speaking with the judge, we can confirm that the HCEO did speak with the judge. The judge made an order for the officer to cease levying on goods. This is known as a stay of execution. The execution of a warrant may be stopped or “stayed” as a result of a further order of the Court. Generally the defendant to the action will make an application to the Court to prevent the judgment against him being executed. The application may be made in stressful circumstances. The HCEO must be able to respond to any order which is made, and the order must be obeyed immediately. If the HCEO is unsure about the extent of the order, or is in any way uncertain about what to do, the matter should immediately be referred to the person who made the order, eg the judge. Under no circumstances be should the officer take it upon themselves to interpret the terms of the order.

 

Once a judgment or order has been made the Court can only grant a stay of execution in limited circumstances. A judgment or order for the payment of money can be stayed either absolutely, or such period and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit (see RSC, O.47, r.1 (1)).

 

The usual form of order is that the execution of the writ of fieri facias will be stayed so long as the judgment defendant pays the amount of the debt and costs by specified installments on specified dates, and, if he defaults in meeting any installment on the due date, the stay will be removed for any outstanding balance.

 

Any order granting a stay may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order, (RSC, O.47, r.1 (5)).

 

In cases of urgency where, for example perhaps the HCEO is already at premises to remove goods, the defendant can attend to seek a stay of execution pending the hearing. Stays obtained in these circumstances are usually very frantic affairs. The HCEO is rarely represented at the hearing. It then falls upon the execution creditor to instruct the HCEO so that he obeys the order of the Court (see Montague v. Davies Benachi & Co. [1911] 2 KB 595).

 

Where a formal seizure of the goods has already been made by the HCEO, then any order made by the Court should clearly direct whether the Sheriff should withdraw from possession, and if so, when.

 

If the HCEO and/or removal contractors are in the process of removing the goods from the defendant’s premises, the removal should cease immediately. Goods which have been loaded on the removal vehicle should be taken into store. Goods still remaining in the premises should remain in the premises. The object of this is to maintain the status quo at the time of the order coming to the knowledge of the Officer. If the defendant wishes the return of the goods already taken, he should seek a further and specific order from the Court.

 

I hope that this clarifies the position.

 

We are happy to answer any questions we can.

 

Burlington Group[/quote

 

 

It is good to see both sides of the 'story' straight from the horses mouth.

 

 

However, a Judge ordered enforcement to cease forthwith and those goods taken be returned from whence they came and there can be no doubt that is exactly what should have happened. If we read the original post again it is clear that having spoken with the Judge, the enforcement officer continued to remove goods and load them onto a vehicle, there can be no disputing the officer took it upon himself to blatantly disregard that instruction.

 

It is this sort of behaviour that calls the industry into dispute and I don't think it would be fair for the OP to be expected to make a reply on an open forum as clearly the matter is need of escalation to higher authorities.

 

 

WD

Edited November 22, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[Ian olney]

Would personally say that it's a pity the more dubious companies don't respond to threads on here.

 

There are certain companies whose names appear on here on a regular basis-Perhaps dialogue like the post from Ross Crawford would help avert many disputes

 

That said, it's hard to imagine a justifiable answer to the Head H scenario.

 

In defence, I wrote to every bailiff company regarding this fee and only Rundles co-operated. They do not charge under Head H when they do not remove goods. In a market where (as far as I'm aware) all of their competitors DO charge this fee, credit should be given to Rundles in this instance.

[rasg]

Happy to reply to this but I've read this rubbish spouted by Ross of Burlington and I'm not quite sure how it is possible it is to be respectful but I will try.

 

If the HCEO and/or removal contractors are in the process of removing the goods from the defendant’s premises, the removal should cease immediately. Goods which have been loaded on the removal vehicle should be taken into store. Goods still remaining in the premises should remain in the premises. The object of this is to maintain the status quo at the time of the order coming to the knowledge of the Officer. If the defendant wishes the return of the goods already taken, he should seek a further and specific order from the Court.

 

So, Ross, you are actually admitting that your HCEO who is nothing more than a bailiff exceeded his authority? This will be interesting to add to the existing complaint as a representative of Burlington has admitted it. Your "HCEO" continued to rampage around the garden with his mob of thugs for a full 30 minutes after he was told to stop by the judge. I'm sorry. Any sane person who thinks it is right that a group of four people should be allowed to effectively terrorise a young woman with a two year old, pushing past her into the house needs a big reality check. I'm not sure that you have the right case either. The Judge had set the judgement aside and told the "HCEO" that so there was no reason keep any items.

 

If the defendant wishes the return of the goods already taken, he should seek a further and specific order from the Court.

 

I won’t agree with this either. If a bailiff/HCEO blatantly disregards a judge on behalf of his company that company should be forced to quickly return those items at their own cost. If you lot had any conscience, at all, that is. But time is money, right?

 

I will check tomorrow but I'm not even sure that your company has even returned the money yet.

[brassnecked]

"If the HCEO and/or removal contractors are in the process of removing the goods from the defendant’s premises, the removal should cease immediately. Goods which have been loaded on the removal vehicle should be taken into store. Goods still remaining in the premises should remain in the premises. The object of this is to maintain the status quo at the time of the order coming to the knowledge of the Officer. If the defendant wishes the return of the goods already taken, he should seek a further and specific order from the Court."

 

If the judge had set the judgment aside, would that not revoke or automatically invalidate the warrant under which the HCEO was enforcing? The further removals carried on after the Judge orderd them to cease the enforcement is tantamount to contempt. The comment sby Burlington is only valid if the judgment still stood, or am I missing something here which allows a HCEO to enforce on a defunct judgment?

[rasg]

If the judge had set the judgment aside, would that not revoke or automatically invalidate the warrant under which the HCEO was enforcing? The further removals carried on after the Judge ordered them to cease the enforcement is tantamount to contempt. The comment sby Burlington is only valid if the judgment still stood, or am I missing something here which allows a HCEO to enforce on a defunct judgment?

 

Exactly my point. There was no request of a stay of execution. The judgement had been set aside.

[wonkeydonkey]

"If the HCEO and/or removal contractors are in the process of removing the goods from the defendant’s premises, the removal should cease immediately. Goods which have been loaded on the removal vehicle should be taken into store. Goods still remaining in the premises should remain in the premises. The object of this is to maintain the status quo at the time of the order coming to the knowledge of the Officer. If the defendant wishes the return of the goods already taken, he should seek a further and specific order from the Court."

 

If the judge had set the judgment aside, would that not revoke or automatically invalidate the warrant under which the HCEO was enforcing? The further removals carried on after the Judge orderd them to cease the enforcement is tantamount to contempt. The comment sby Burlington is only valid if the judgment still stood, or am I missing something here which allows a HCEO to enforce on a defunct judgment?

 

 

 

You are correct BN set aside means the Judgment had been cancelled/overturned/defunct etc etc, that the attending 'officer' was given instruction direct from the Judge making that order, certainly seems to suggest the 'officer' can be seen to be in contempt of Court.

[brassnecked]

You are correct BN set aside means the Judgment had been cancelled/overturned/defunct etc etc, that the attending 'officer' was given instruction direct from the Judge making that order, certainly seems to suggest the 'officer' can be seen to be in contempt of Court.

I think that they decided that although the set aside killed the judgment, as there was no stay, the warrant was still live so the HCEO did a Sherfarce and carried on regardless, as they want paying for something so will try to bill Op for their botched enforcement, by ransoming the goods.

[brassnecked]

Perhaps Burlington could clarify why their enforcers carried on after the judge told them to stop, was it definitely the absence of a stay on the warrant to enforce the now defunct judgment?

[wonkeydonkey]

It won't do for me to say to much on the forum but, suffice it to say behind the scenes the OP has matters in hand and as always....it never pays to give the enemy your battle plans!!!!

[brassnecked]

It won't do for me to say to much on the forum but, suffice it to say behind the scenes the OP has matters in hand and as always....it never pays to give the enemy your battle plans!!!!

 

We will await the outcome with bated breath, that no doubt will be posted in the fullness of time

 

Op is in safe hands with you WD, If Burlington aren't quaking in their boots they should be.

[HCEOs]

Whilst I agree with some of the legal argument put forward by Burlington Credit I would state that if the judge did genuinely ask the Enforcement Agent to return the goods then it would have been prudent to do so. However, technically this verbal request may have been outside his remit.

 

I would again state that the Enforcement Agent is not required to return goods seized and removed. He is only required to make them available for collection unless an order states otherwise.

 

It must be remembered that we are relying on a 3rd party version of events and so often I have seen exaggerations on what is actually said by a judge on all consumer forums. I'll be interested to see where this one goes...

[Ross Crawford - Burlington]

Dear all,

 

Thank you for your responses, and for welcoming Burlington Group to the forum.

 

Having read through your comments, I understand there are a few remaining points that I can clarify.

 

Firstly, it appears unclear from this thread whether the judgment was “stayed” or “set aside”. I can confirm that, in this case, the judge ordered the execution of the warrant to be “stayed” while the officers were executing the order of the court. The judgment was not “set aside” until a later occasion. It was only at a separate hearing on a later date the judgment was finally “set aside”.

 

As the order was only “stayed” at the time of the visit in question, the officers acted correctly as ordered by the High Court when they removed the seized goods. I must also point out that the enforcement officers stopped seizing goods immediately following the order from the judge. The only goods that were removed were the goods already loaded onto the removal vehicle in accordance with statutory obligations. There would have been no reason or any motivation for the officers to act otherwise.

 

It would appear that we also need to clarify that HCEOs in person delegate the execution of writs to authorised persons, sometimes certificated bailiffs, as their subordinates. This is authorised practice and there is no wrongdoing with an duly authorised certificated bailiff executing the order of his principal HCEO. It would not be correct to suggest misrepresentation when acting in this manner. There are currently 59 authorised principal HCEOs and last year they oversaw almost 70,000 writs executed under their personal appointment.

 

Please bear in mind when you assess any situation such as this that court officers are under an obligation to the court and also the creditor to execute the order of a court. It is easy to overlook the creditor’s position, and also to overlook the officer’s duty to execute an order of the court. Creditors are sometimes private individuals or small businesses that have been seriously affected as a result of unpaid court awards. An enforcement officer could also be criticised by the execution creditor if he does not act within the full order of the court to seize goods to satisfy an award made for the creditor.

 

I am sure you can appreciate, we have joined this discussion as we want to answer any questions and clarify the position. We are here to listen and respond to your comments to try to explain the situation. I hope that my response achieves this.

 

Burlington Group

[HoldingCaulfield]

Hi all,

 

I've been following discussions on here from time to time as I had to deal with an HCEO late last year in a similar situation to this thread. Luckily my matter was resolved as judgment was set aside prior to any of my goods being removed.

 

During this time I did a lot of research on this through friends and family and on various forums and websites. There really is a lot of information out there, some clear and concise, some conflicting and impossible to comprehend!

 

However, it is refreshing to see an enforcement company putting its head above a parapet and answering people's questions.

 

Given this, I do hope that Burlington can answer mine.

 

I note that Burlington Group have one authorised High Court Enforcement Officer, namely a Mr Nicholas Todd. A little Googling shows that Mr Todd runs an auctioneer business called EWB in Sheffield (a long way from Burlington's offices in Surrey) and has done for many years. In the circumstances I am concerned as to his real experience in enforcement and that Burlington are just using him for his authority.

 

Q1. Can Burlington clarify the amount of writs enforced by Mr Todd annually prior to his appointment at Burlington?

Q2. Is Mr Todd a Director of Burlington Credit Ltd?

Q3. Were the goods removed in the matter taken to Mr Todd's own auctioneer?

Q4. Is Mr Todd really in control of the writs issued in his name?

[ploddertom]

 

Q1. Can Burlington clarify the amount of writs enforced by Mr Todd annually prior to his appointment at Burlington?

Q2. Is Mr Todd a Director of Burlington Credit Ltd?

Q3. Were the goods removed in the matter taken to Mr Todd's own auctioneer?

Q4. Is Mr Todd really in control of the writs issued in his name?

 

 

I don't think these are questions that should be answered on here, have you considered writing to them? If you have had a previous issue then maybe you would like to tell us about it although if it has been set aside then it is as if it never occurred.

[HCEOs]

I too am not sure those questions are entirely relevant for the OP except number 3 possibly.

[rasg]

As the OP I would love to hear the answers to the four questions!

 

A bailiff or HCEO who owns an auction house!? Whatever next.

 

By the way. Nicholas Todd doesn’t appear to be a director of Burlington.

Edited November 26, 2013 by rasg

[HCEOs]

It is not unusual for a former Sheriff's Officer to be connected to an Auctioneers. Prior to 2004 most were.

[rasg]

It is not unusual for a former Sheriff's Officer to be connected to an Auctioneers. Prior to 2004 most were.

 

What happened 2004 onwards?

[HCEOs]

Legislation changed making Sheriff's Officers the High Court Enforcement Officers they are now. Prior to this they were restricted to their bailiwick (essentially a County) and after the change they could enforce throughout England & Wales. When they were restricted geographically most were linked to auctioneers for obvious reasons.

Edited November 26, 2013 by HCEOs